What is a good society?

Life is complex and multifaceted. To flourish, we need a variety of things. Here is my list of the most important (in alphabetical order):

Community

Democracy

Economic equality

Economic opportunity

Economic prosperity

Economic security

Economic stability

Education

Employment

Environment

Family

Finance

Freedom

Good government

Happiness

Health

Housing

Inclusion

Information

Law and order

Privacy

Safety

The United States and the world (how we relate to other countries)

Some of these desiderata take precedence over others. But which ones? Most of us would agree that basic liberties are more important than economic prosperity. Yet are they also more important than economic security? Than democracy? Than safety? Do they trump environmental sustainability?

Prioritizing is difficult. If we ask 100 people to rank-order these various ends, we might well get 100 different orderings. Libertarians privilege freedom.1 Utilitarians emphasize happiness.2 Marxists tend to focus on material needs.3 For many conservatives, safety and order get top billing.4 The Declaration of Independence prized “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The French Revolution highlighted “liberty, equality, fraternity.” Communitarians emphasize civic engagement and social connections.5 For proponents of the “capabilities approach,” opportunity takes center stage.6 Environmentalists emphasize planetary survival.

Is there an objective way to decide? The best-known device is John Rawls’ “original position.” In A Theory of Justice, Rawls asks us to imagine we will be born into the world without knowing what our assets, abilities, and preferences will be. Rawls concluded that a rational person in this scenario would privilege basic liberties, equality of opportunity, and the maximum possible well-being of least well-off.7 Rawls’ conclusion isn’t universally shared, however. And his notion of the well-being of those at the bottom in effect lumps together a number of the ends in the above list, such as economic security, housing, safety, and happiness.

Existing societies reinforce the conclusion that there is nothing close to a consensus about which of these desiderata to prioritize. Modern rich countries strive for varying combinations.8

In The Idea of Justice, Amartya Sen makes the sensible point that thinking and arguing about the ideal society distracts from the more important task of improving on what currently exists.9 There is no optimal, achievable good society. There is only better and worse. Our aim should be to do better, not to achieve perfection.

The task for scientists, then, is to answer these two questions:

Which institutions and policies, alone or in combination, are more effective than others at achieving these ends?

To what extent are there tradeoffs? For instance, if we want more equality, do we have to sacrifice some liberty or prosperity? If so, how much? In other words, how close can we get to “all of the above”?